wastewater treatment<\/a> programs, that can be a very large amount of money.<\/p>\nnichoel church:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>and a lot of times, the funding assistance might come with additional monitoring. it might require additional documentation on the backend. so you’ve received the funding, you’ve removed your dam, and now you have to monitor your river for ten years, or now you have to, if it’s corps of engineers section 206, it might take ten years just to remove the dam because they have to go through their own process internally. so it really just depends. if you want your dam removed quickly, you have to consider funding assistance that will allow you to do that. if you don’t mind, if it takes ten years, then you’re open to pretty much everything.<\/p>\nchristy ortmann:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>just to give you guys the results of the poll, it looks like about 50% of people “don’t know.” then it was split between “municipality” and “utility.” so kind of what we thought in anticipation of this.<\/p>\njeff walters:<\/strong>
\nthe iowa department of natural resources and the corps of engineers have a database that we access that provides us with ownership. there are definitely gaps in there from who owns it or who thinks they own their dam, which can be an issue. and then there are probably hundreds of dams that are very, very small in size that are likely privately owned that don’t show up on this database.<\/p>\nnichoel church:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>well, the information just isn’t there because it’s on private property.<\/p>\njeff walters:<\/strong>
\nright. yeah, someone just built a dam and has a small farm pond.<\/p>\nhow ownership affects funding<\/h3>\n
christy ortmann:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>how does that affect funding? that was one of the questions that came in based on ownership. how does that change what is available?<\/p>\nnichoel church:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>private landowners can still access epa funding. they can still access fish and wildlife service funding. there are several assistance options available if the dam is privately owned. if it is a farmed pond, the iowa department of agricultural land stewardship offers funding assistance. the nrcs offers funding assistance. with idals, you could contact your sole water conservation district and see if they would offer funding assistance for water quality benefits. there are just so many opportunities for funding if it’s a privately owned dam, whether it’s on an intermittent channel or a pond.<\/p>\njeff walters:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>not that it’s a bad thing, but funding assistance usually comes with a laundry list of water quality monitoring or visual assessments vegetation assessments, which is all great because likely your goal is some sort of water quality improvement or stabilization. so it’s good to follow up once you’ve completed that project. but you want to be aware of any of those catches that might come on the backend of the funding assistance before you dedicate time and resources to go after that funding.<\/p>\nnichoel church:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>it doesn’t matter if the funding is acquired. it doesn’t matter if the epa completes their own survey or fish and wildlife completes their own survey or if the landowner completes the survey. it should be listed with the funding assistance, who is going to be completing the documentation and how often, if it’s annual, bi-annual, if the private landowner can complete it, if epa wants to complete their own or hire a consultant to do that, that would all be laid out in front so you would know what is expected with acquiring that funding.<\/p>\nsnyders role in funding assistance<\/h3>\n
christy ortmann:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>which segways nicely into one of the questions that we had come up with about how can snyder specifically help with the funding, either documentation that’s necessary or recommendation.<\/p>\njeff walters:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>sure. it’s great to get in early so that we can understand why you want to remove or modify a dam. because those whys really play a role in funding assistance. while the corps of engineers, srf, fish, and wildlife service understand that safety is important, that’s not their purview. they’re interested in saving lives, but their goal is an improvement to the environment. so we want to help craft that information so that when we can submit applications on the city’s or municipality’s behalf or private landowner for that matter, the answers and the information we provide to a specific regulatory agency is geared to what they are looking for.<\/p>\nnichoel church:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>that’s true. it really helps to understand the agency’s perspective. why are they offering this funding assistance? what do they get from it? unfortunately, the state and the federal government just doesn’t have funding to give out for saving lives. if that was the number one reason that funding was available for everyone would apply for it because we know that that’s a benefit of removing a dam. but a lot of times, the epa wants to understand, they want to collect the data. they want to have an understanding of the benefit of removing the dam from an environmental water quality perspective. corps of engineers probably wouldn’t require so much water quality as they would require stabilization monitoring. same for fish and wildlife service, you’re going to have habitat surveys and fishing surveys done, probably completed by the dnr, but they might require an outside party, like a consultant, to do that survey. it really just depends on the funding assistance, and we would definitely help you describe to whoever we’re asking money from, why we are requesting it, and how this would benefit them. that’s very important.<\/p>\njeff walters:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>good question.<\/p>\nease and availability of funding sources<\/h3>\n
christy ortmann:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>before we move on, i had one more question that came through that was about your experience with funding sources. which ones do you feel are easier or more readily available? there was a couple of different variations of being asked that specifically about ones that were popular, readily available, and specifically, our experience working through that.<\/p>\njeff walters:\u00a0<\/strong>
\n<\/u>the money is very competitive, and it’s competitive, not only because a lot of people are applying for it, but those funding pots vary from year to year. at the state level with the iowa department of natural resources, they’re allocated different amounts of money each year for low head modification and removals. they also have a couple of other programs, but there is an application process, an approval process, and a selection process. it can be very, very competitive.<\/p>\nnichoel church:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>not only is it competitive, but funding is always limited. so annually, when the fiscal year budgets come out, we are on top of those grant opportunities or funding assistance opportunities for our projects. but we have to know that the projects are there. we don’t always keep tabs on funding assistance available if we don’t have a project. so we’re very much interested in talking to not only just the agencies, but we also have several employees that go out to washington d.c. every year and lobby for additional funding. it’s very important for us and our clients to get the maximum amount of benefit that they can and assistance that they can. so with that effort, we are always willing to go above and beyond for our clients. it’s just we have to know that that project is there.<\/p>\nchristy ortmann:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>we had somebody ask specifically not to take you off track from that question because obviously several people asked that, but they said timing-wise of making contact with us if they wanted to work with us in the funding. when’s the right time? you said early…<\/p>\njeff walters:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>in a community’s timing, anytime. if we can get in early if someone is thinking about removing a dam, but in terms of timing for applications, they vary throughout the year. there’s a january one, a march one, a september one deadlines for a lot of this funding. if you are an srf user, you’ve probably gone through that process. you probably have the stars on your calendar, knowing exactly when those applications are due.<\/p>\nnichoel church:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>there’s also a process that we have to consider for design. if we were aware of a project today, we wouldn’t necessarily go after funding tomorrow because we wouldn’t know what our design process would be. that takes time. so if we were aware of a project today and we figured out what the client wanted and what they were interested in removal, then we would be aware of our options and our ranges because we wouldn’t want to fill out an application for funding that we couldn’t use. it would just go to someone else. so we would definitely want to work through the design process a little bit and then apply for the funding, and fiscal years are annual, which is great. so even if we miss the deadline on one, there’s always another opportunity for something else or to reapply a year from that date.<\/p>\njeff walters:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>right and we did that with clean water srf projects where we were looking for certain benefits, and srf said, you know, let’s apply again, and we can reorganize the money for you for dam removal projects, but let’s make sure we have a good emphasis on water quality.<\/p>\nnichoel church:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>exactly. because that is a requirement of the state revolving fund use of that money for water quality.<\/p>\nchristy ortmann:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>there were quite a few interesting questions? thank you for your participation and for asking us questions.<\/p>\njeff walters:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>funding’s very important. while these are all great and important topics, funding is the single most important topic because, without the dollars, you’re not removing that damn.<\/p>\nnichoel church:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>it can also become an imminent hazard for dams that are failing. with the funding assistance that fema provides for the failure of structures, the dnr provides for failure structures. it’s important to also know the condition of your dam. if it’s simply a low head dam that you just want to remove, that’s one thing. if it’s imminent to fall into the river, that’s a different story. so i guess the condition of the dam would also be important to know as we would proceed with funding applications and assistance.<\/p>\nsquaw creek modification (36:13)<\/h2>\n
jeff walters:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>so, briefly, we touched on squaw creek here a couple of times, but that was fema hazard mitigation grant program. that program paid for 85% of the dam removal and the in-stream structure, bank stabilization, design, and environmental documentation for that project…<\/p>\nnichoel church:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>…and permitting.<\/p>\njeff walters:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>…and permitting, correct.<\/p>\nnichoel church:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>and that slide that you see, you can kind of see the dam that has been modified. that’s the first overflow structure that you see. it does not have cyclical currents any longer. it’s very shallow. the flow allows kayakers to, like jeff had said before, get a little whitewater action moving through this section of squaw creek. it’s a huge benefit from an environmental perspective\u2014several benefits for water quality. you can just see how clear the water is as it moves through that section of the creek, and fema helped significantly with that project.<\/p>\nmitigation banking – little dam (37:11)<\/h2>\n
jeff walters:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>one funding mechanism that we didn’t list out but is gaining a lot of popularity in the midwest, especially in iowa, is mitigation banking, specifically for streams. we were very fortunate enough to be the first in the state to have a stream mitigation banking that was based on dam removal up in fort dodge. it was a very unique process, not only because it was the first in the state, but we were removing two dams with one project, and we had a full removal of the little dam.<\/p>\nmitigation banking – hydroelectric dam (37:46)<\/h2>\n
jeff walters:
\n<\/strong>and then we had initially a full removal of the hydro dam, but circumstances, as it would be, with some regulatory agencies, specifically shpo (state historic preservation office), and we’ll talk about this in a minute. they required us to keep some of the dams for historical purposes. still, the benefit of removing a dam above and beyond water quality, safety, recreational benefits was the city of fort dodge is going to reap the benefits of being a mitigation bank so they can sell stream credits, which help to pay off the bond for this project and that money will go to future recreational endeavors within the des moines river.<\/p>\nnichoel church:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>as part of that process of funding assistance review for that particular project, we started off not with mitigation banking. we started off with, well actually before we even got involved, the city went to the corps of engineers and asked for their help with section 206. so the corps of engineers would essentially remove the dam on behalf of the city of fort dodge. it wasn’t free. it was going to cost 50\/50. the corps of engineers would’ve had to go through their own internal sections, their own branches internally for review, which would have tacked on quite a bit of money. the city of fort dodge decided to at srf funding from the dnr, which would have worked out. it would have paid for most of the dam removal.<\/p>\njeff walters:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>yeah, the clean water srf funding would have paid for a substantial amount of the project, but we came up with the idea of removing the dams as part of a mitigation banking process. worked with the corps of engineers, the epa, and the dnr. they agreed this would be a great candidate project, but one of the conditions was with a mitigation bank, you can’t use federal funds for mitigation bank. so the city had to decide, and they went with the mitigation banking option, and that process added about a year. but it also gives the city great flexibility financial flexibility in how they can use future dollars. mitigation banking is a great opportunity if those other funding mechanisms don’t work.<\/p>\nnichoel church:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>did we have any other questions?<\/p>\nchristy ortmann:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>no, we had quite a few there. i haven’t seen anything additional come through.<\/p>\nregulatory coordination and permitting (40:34)<\/h2>\n
nichoel church:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>okay. we’ll let you move into the next polling question, but we can talk a little bit about agency requirements and permitting.<\/p>\njeff walters:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>so we’ve touched on most of the agencies, the department of natural resources, fish and wildlife service, army corps of engineers, epa, and the state historic preservation offices are all going to have their chance at reviewing these types of projects. whether it’s for funding or just simply for permitting, there’s going to be a high level of involvement. and what we historically like to do is get them involved early, let them know what we’re doing, how we want to do it, and the approximate timeframe so that they can tell us how long it’s going to take and what they may need for their review process…<\/p>\nnichoel church:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>…and when jeff says early, we mean preliminary design. very early preliminary design. because if we need an individual permit from the corps of engineers, it takes over a year. if we need an iowa department of natural resources floodplain permitting, that takes at least six months. so we definitely want to get our plans in front of the agencies as soon as we can, even if they change. they’re aware of what we are proposing early on and we can understand their requirements for permitting.<\/p>\njeff walters:<\/strong>
\n<\/u>right. once we get through that concept and preliminary design phase, we have the opportunity then to meet with these agencies again, submit our applications for 404 and iowa department natural resource floodplain permits. the other thing we wanted to do early, especially with some of these bigger, older dams, is getting our cultural resources investigations completed and getting that information submitted to shpo (state historic preservation office) as soon as possible. a lot of these big dams are well over 50 years old. they may have some historical context to the community and because they have a historical context to the community or they were uniquely built or designed, they may be eligible to be on the national register of historic places. we found that out with the city of fort dodge, and shpo (state historic preservation office), with the hydroelectric dam. they were understanding that the dam needed to be removed, but their purview is the recognition and preservation of historic sites. and the hydroelectric dam being about 100 years old, was a modern industrial success. it provided a lot of context to the community. it served a great community purpose.<\/p>\nnichoel church:<\/strong>